Thanks for forwarding, JP. This article has some excellent ideas that I hope even some Vision Plan opponents can support. There are numerous mentions of adding more bathroom facilities, which I think most would support, but I hope the city doesnât fail as it has in the past by approving a plan but not providing an actual budget for it. Unfortunately the problem with public restrooms in many cities is them being used by the unhoused, since few cities (including Austin) offer much in the way of facilities for folks living on the streets. Iâm not suggesting that the unhoused be banned from using the bathroom, but itâd be a good idea to have the bathrooms manned during the hours theyâre opened. (This could also help prevent damage or destruction along the lines of graffiti from high schoolers or other youths.)
Iâm curious what yâall have to say about the ideas noted repeatedly of restricting BSRâs vehicular traffic to one lane in each direction. Iâm genuinely undecided: while I clearly see the point in restricting Zilker traffic to pedestrians and bikes, I realize that this reduces its overall accessibility, and could also negatively impact all of the businesses between the park & South Lamar. (I also realize that plenty of Zilker & Barton Hills folks drive to & from work via Mopac to BSR & Azie Morton, as do quite a few coming in from jobs in places like Westlake and near Bee Caves or 360.)
Would having one lane for passenger cars; a second lane solely for CapMetro buses and/or shuttles to the park; and possibly a third lane reserved solely for bicycles work? Or is that simply too much? (especially if it remains two-way, and I havenât heard any suggestions about making it only one-way)
Elevated walkways, world class architecture (something beautiful like the Bean in Chicago), elevated walkways, a lookout tower, and way more trees.
Trees are, of course, welcome, but elevated walkways and a landmark as prominent as the Bean in Chicagoâs Millennium Park would not be a good idea IMO â quite the opposite. (The park needs less traffic, but the Bean has become one of Chicagoâs most photographed â or, as the kids call it, âInstagrammableâ â sights in the entire city. Suffice it to say Zilkerâs already being loved to death, and this would only exacerbate the problem.) Seems like putting something of this nature in a far more accessible location would be wise: that 3-D âATXâ sign in front of the HQ Whole Foods gets a ton of visitors, helped by the area being accessible via numerous streets and sidewalks.)
Iâd also love to see some sort of bike rack depot that had security or cameras present. Would also be great to have a âno droneâ policy like state parks and natural areas do.
Both are great ideas. (Not sure if yâall have been anywhere with a ton of people trying to fly drones around, but theyâre annoying AF even in an uncrowded setting, and potentially quite hazardous in crowded ones.)
A small fee to use the facilities that would go toward a staff person and regular maintenance and cleaning would solve a lot of issues.
So the interesting thing about the current proposal on this is one lane going west from Lamar to Stratford. This actually might work well because it restricts traffic from Lamar but then opens up again after Stratford. The net effect would be that youâd have slower traffic in the denser area then it would open up as people need to proceed to Mopac and beyond.
I had a vision in my head, the other day, of all the asphalt parking lots being jack hammered and replaced with grass fields. The current roads through the park (except BSR and Stratford) closed to vehicles. Introducing electric trams that run on the existing roads which could shuttle people around the park with the only parking under mopac (garages or not).
Iâve been loosely following the discussion here but my only strong opinion is the cutting of BS road down to two lanes. I drive that road every day to take my kid to school/therapy and to get to/from work. It is nearly always full of cars in the AM with an occasional bus. I rarely see people biking â perhaps this is a âif you build it, they will comeâ scenario, but there are extensive bike paths along the hike/bike that more safely connect downtown areas with Zilker park. I would be for reducing to one lane if it only happened during busy times of park use (weekends, festivals) but Iâm strongly opposed to reducing it for all of time.
Ginny
So totally understandable. What I was saying though is I think there is a possibility because of restricting traffic onto Barton Springs from Lamar and then opening up again at Stratford if youâre making a left onto Barton Springs Road from Azie Morton you could experience less traffic - think getting on a freeway right in front of a wreck. Because you are entering the road after the âchoke pointâ and right before it resumes to two lanes it might work to the benefit of the neighborhood.
A lot of âifâsâ would just have to see - I certainly donât want more congestion on that road as I use it a lot as well, though I also donât want to cater to cars.
despite really wanting it to be only two lanes, i have a hard time imaging that ever going over well given all the reasons people have mentioned. i have suggested making it a 3 lane road with contraflow. if the majority of the AM traffic is westbound then you have 2 of the 3 doing that and then switch it back for the PM traffic returning east. iâd probably be fine with it staying 4 lanes if they would just lower the speed limit to 20mph at all times and install a couple more ped beacons for crossing.
ZNA didnât kill this plan. the plan killed itself once people understood how misguided it was. the surveys done by the consultant have been debunked, there were no traffic/environmental/economic studies done or referred to that validated any of the claims made, the zilker collective / zilker351 had outsized influence on the plan since before it was public, and the plan contradicted many of the stated goals of the city in terms of climate, transportation, and equity.
the article shares comments from readers that go from eradicating cars from the park to supporting building parking garages in the park. the parking garage idea was never fully cooked and had no study to prove they were even feasible. the parking garage âunderâ mopac isnât possible. txdot is wanting to blow that bridge up and build a double decker version as it works to turn mopac into i-35 west. even if they left that bridge alone, the consultants suggested digging down around the piers in order to have space to get even 3 stories of parking. sounds expensive and unlikely. the other 2 underground parking garages are reckless. you donât just dig a 30 foot deep, 4 acre hole in the ground within 100 yards of barton springs. that is insane and, again, they had done zero research as to the viability of any of this. we are debating pie in the sky ideas that have no chance of happening. luckily⌠there are lots of parking spaces that currently exist in parking garages that border the park. the consultants never reached out to the owners of the garages to negotiate any sort of access. $60+ million to build garages in the park but canât figure out how to strike a deal to access existing parking garages for this 50 year plan? $1,000,000 a year in fees to the garage owners seems like an easy place to start.
anywho⌠the vision plan failed because it was not a vision plan. it was just rearranging all the elements of the park while constructing $150million dollars worth of not park essential stuff. less than 25% of the proposed budget went to actual restoration, bathrooms, bike racks, tree planting, and many of the things people expressed in the article are important to them.
the disc golf course is the MOST visited course in texas: The Most Popular Disc Golf Course In Every State: 2019 | UDisc - it is legendary but the plan called for it to be destroyed and replaced with a sports complex. the disc golf people complained and they move the sports complex.
the volley ball community never asked to be moved to a spot by mopac. the consultants just did it to consolidate the sports complex and⌠well⌠honestly⌠to get it out of the way of the large events that take over the great lawn. it is to facilitate more events on the great lawn.
every single survey about the hillside theater done by the consultants and elsewhere showed little support for moving the theater. guess what showed up in the plan? a 5000 person theater on the great lawn. who benefits from this permanent live performance venue on the great lawn? the consultants claimed it was NEVER be used for any other purpose than what it currently is⌠but then in the same breath talked about how excited the botanical gardens was to be able to expand programming to it. you think acl wonât make use of it? and you think the seating is permanent even after you look at the imagery they shared and at waterloo parkâs design? the existing theater can be remodeled (as has been happening already) where it stands. if they need more capacity then they can start doing performances at the new waterloo park stage to spread the love across the city. it wonât matter any more if itâs not in zilker since you wonât be able to reasonably walk from the great lawn stage to the springs before and during intermission to cool off. might as well have the stage anywhere else.
they proposed 3 new bridges across barton creek. go visit those areas and tell me how many trees would be cut down to do this. another bridge across town lake, same story. a land bridge across bsr⌠same thing. all of these bridges were connected to parking garages that were positioned based on the needs of the existing vendors in the park, not based on where casual park users want to be.
the best way for âzilker to best accommodate austinâs ongoing growthâ is to establish more park land all over austin and to fully fund pard so they donât have to rely on pimping out our best parks to commercial interests that shut down public access for months of each year.
and one side noteâŚ
not everyone in zna agrees with each other the same way that not everyone here agrees with each other. this forum needs to establish an identity beyond just complaining about zna and other groups of constant mention.
These numbers are being tossed about are ridiculous. Everyone just takes them as fact because someone says so. The Grove on Bull Creek which is a massive development. 75 acres with utility infrastructure, streets, residence, lots of commercial space and 12 acres of park land is 500 million. The one thing the government is good at is spending money that has no real consequences on the lives of those approving the spending. Big contractors inflate prices to the city at an unbelievable scale and get very rich doing it.
I have been wanting a pedestrian bridge on the south side Barton springs rd. for 25 years. Do it where you donât have to cut down a heritage tree and plant several more for every one that needs to be taken. Remember, this is for the future. Another bridge over the park near stratford could be useful and could be done without the taking of trees.
A parking garage near mopac is perfectly feasible. I wouldnât want it to take up the whole area but it could definitely take up a third to half of it. Thinking of a garage that would rise to the height of mopac with a green space on the surround would be nice. You would still see the skyline from mopac, if that matters. The garage would also be a sound barrier for Hwy noise into the park. The garage could also have peak and off peak rates, like the toll roads. Why not charge people $75 to park there for ACL. The pay back would be much quicker. Then once the garage is paid for, use the funds to put to the benefit of the park. This isnât rocket science. And I donât want to hear there is too much remediation. That is it being spun and ZNA has been doing it for at least 10 years. A good size garage could be put there for 10-12 million with no problem. There are thousands of engineered prefab garages all over the country. We are not reinventing the wheel here.
BTW, This is the only garage I MAY support because it only makes so much sense for the park both accessibility wise, revenue wise, and acts as a barrier from a noisy roadway to make better park space on the other side.
The biggest issue I can see is how to get cars there without directing them down Stratford. There would have to be a connection next to mopac and it would create more of an intersection at Barton Springs road and Mopac. The park is for the people. Either have better and more easily accessible mass transit or do the next best thing.
I am honestly baffled by this part:
These numbers are being tossed about are ridiculous. Everyone just takes them as fact because someone says so. The Grove on Bull Creek which is a massive development. 75 acres with utility infrastructure, streets, residence, lots of commercial space and 12 acres of park land is 500 million. The one thing the government is good at is spending money that has no real consequences on the lives of those approving the spending.
First: unlike the conspiracy rumors about Zilker being taken over by private interests, this is precisely what happened at the Grove. The city never owned the land in the first place, and its best & final offer of $30 million was easily topped by a developer offering $50 million; the state had a fiduciary duty to sell to the higher bidder. How on earth is this some egregious misuse of taxes? (particularly since the state made a profit from the sale)
Further, what percentage of that ostensible $500 million expense for the Grove was paid for by the city? The developers, sure â itâs akin to a new subdivision, and developers typically pay for roads, sewer, etc. in such projects â but the city? Seriously? Regardless, youâre trying to compare an unambiguous commercial development, with hundreds of homes along with a large amount of commercial & retail space, with a quite-literal park. Unless Iâm missing something, this seems like a classic false-equivalency argument.
Or is this entire post a rationalization for spending eight figures on the Zilker parking garage, either near Mopac or elsewhere?
The one thing the government is good at is spending money that has no real consequences on the lives of those approving the spending.
Such as? Iâm genuinely curious. Assuming you mean the city, not county or state: the one area where many â though apparently not all in this group â would support massive cutbacks is in its area with the single largest budget allotment, namely APD. They have minimal input on property taxes. Most city bonds are approved by 70-80 point margins, so suggesting those voting for them âdonât understand the financial consequencesâ is both false & condescending. (I guess this is a surprise to some, but not all lower-income folks are âbad with money.â Ever heard of just being frugal?)
Unless, of course, youâre talking about Project Connect, assuming you opposed it. Iâd actually agree that the proponents of the rail bond did far too little to understand the consequences on the lives of those doing the spending â meaning the 2014 rail ballot, that is, the one that wouldâve put rail almost entirely in D9, by far the most affluent (and least in need) of rail service. It passed by a 2-to-1 margin in D9, with strong rich white support for people wanting to reduce their carbon footprint, but failed by 20 or more points in literally every other district. This definitely includes D1 & D2, where thereâs strong support for public transit because people need to use it, due to lacking the luxury of a car. (I will admit that I voted against the 2014 bond for solely serving already affluent people, but happily voted for Project Connect.)
Big contractors inflate prices to the city at an unbelievable scale and get very rich doing it.
Such as? What specific large-scale, city-funded projects had âmassively inflated budgets,â and if that is in fact the case, is there some reason you havenât taken action about it? (Iâm sure youâd find a friendly audience at the Capitol, since they hate Austin.) Again, I am genuinely curious. That said, the one admitted boondoggle I know about is APDâs central booking facility / county courthouse. (I interned at the Travis County DAâs Office, then housed in the same building as the courtrooms and jail cells, a decade ago after my first semester of law school.)
So: which huge contractors are getting rich off of poor Austinitesâ backs? And which city-funded projects are ones you donât think the lower-income homeowners whoâll be paying proportionally the most wouldâve approved, given the impact on their finances?
Jeff,
You get fired up very quickly and seem to fill in your own narrative. I donât know why you are talking about poor people spending money. I never said anything about poor people. Why are you speaking about poor peopleâs spending habits?
What is meant by government; is that any government body whether it be the City, County, State, or Federal has a tendency to not spend money efficiently. The saying is, âItâs easy to spend other peopleâs moneyâ. Have you heard of that? Do you agree?
You are correct with the Grove, but you prove my point with it.
Yes the city was going to accept 20 million dollars less, because a couple of counsel members wanted a feather in their cap. This is because the GOVERNMENT was in control and are not good with financial decisions. This isnât a new phenomenon.
The private developers pay more and are more efficient in how they spend their money. Look what 500 million gets spent privately. The government also wins down the road though more tax creation.
And to be clear, I am not saying developers should have free reign, just that the government shouldnât be trusted to spend money.
Early in my career I worked for Dell selling computers to the federal government. At the end of the fiscal year I would get a flood of orders. Millions of dollars of orders. The people ordering would all tell me if they didnât use it they would lose it next year even if they didnât need a computer. It used to piss me off so much.
I remember another case of a block of sidewalk being redone on south congress. They spent 600k doing it. This shouldnât have been more than 75K had a private company had to do it for themselves.
Yes this.
This also gets to my core point on all of this with the Vision plan. Itâs not that the plan was perfect. There were certainly things that were questionable and details that needed to be filled in. Itâs that it was summarily executed in its entirety with lies and misinformation. Pessimistic politics as @dweinberg calls it. Time and time again it keeps us optimists from actually advocating for and doing positive things for the neighborhood and the city. It is exhausting. But I do hope this forum can be a small ray of light in at least having an honest discourse about these things in the future.
You didnât answer the question put to you. Iâll ask again. Do you think the Government is generally efficient with the way they spend money?
150 million for park restoration. 60 million for parking garages. Whatâs baffling about that? Parking garages consist of precast concrete beams that are mass produced and assembled on site in most cases. No real infrastructure needed, sewer, gas lines or large 3 phase power. Not needed.
I can tell you why youâre baffled. Because you have never been involved in construction and donât understand the factors of input. Stick to what you know and contribute that way.
Here is a link with estimated cost for support beams for the Nation Bridge Alliance. This is some informative reading for those who enjoy construction estimating.
https://www.aisc.org/nsba/hdr-pricing-study/central-region-arkansas-illinois-minnesota/
Iâm of really no position to speak to cost for these types of things. I will say generally speaking that government is not the most efficient. But that is for a number of good reasons. Government has a lot more oversight than private projects. Standards are held up to a higher bar. The number of eyes on the project are exponentially higher. The amount of QA and management required is also much higher. Think of the hoopla over the vision plan. And that was just a plan. Everything done in the public arena, especially with everyone putting on their âexpert cap,â will cost more.
You are correct with the Grove, but you prove my point with it. Yes the city was going to accept 20 million dollars less, because a couple of counsel members wanted a feather in their cap.
Okay, youâve lost me, and this isnât what I said. What do you mean by the city âaccepting $20M lessâ? The city never owned the land: the state owned it, and initially planned to use it as an extension for the Texas State Cemetery. The state opted to sell, after concluding it didnât need the land, and the city offered $30 million for it, albeit without any firm plan as to what to do if their bid prevailed. Milestone, its ultimate developer, topped that offer with a $50 million one the city couldnât meet.
If the city did own the Grove (at any juncture), youâd have a point. Had their bid prevailed, Iâm sure they wouldâve spent a huge sum converting it into a park or some other development, but this has nothing to do with âthe city accepting 20 million dollars lessâ â what they failed to do was offer $20M more â and âbecause a couple of counsel members wanted a feather in their cap.â Which CMs and which cap?? (I know Leslie Pool horrifically manipulated sentiment over the Grove in her district to defeat Natalie Gauldin in her first reelection campaign, including a dark-money PAC sending out lurid flyers â trying to connect the Grove to Trump (!!!) â mere days before the runoff vote. Is that what you meant?)
Again, the Grove never involved ANY expense on the cityâs part, so Iâm entirely unclear why you brought it up.
And to be clear, I am not saying developers should have free reign, just that the government shouldnât be trusted to spend money.
To be clear on my end, we need to agree to disagree since ⌠well, Iâm not a libertarian, for one thing. I obviously donât approve of all of the cityâs expenditures, but I apparently have greater faith in government than you do. (Okay, except for TxDOT.) That said, Iâve posted numerous comments here recently, as have others, about the fact that the cityâs permitting system is horrifically broken, and forces almost any type of development to go through a Byzantine approval process that costs 4x-5x more â at least â than our peer cities.
But that said, the city just hired McKinsey for the explicit purpose of streamlining its City Hall operations, and that includes substantial reductions in the amounts of both time and money needed to build anything. (And yet people on here â Iâm not sure if this includes you btw â have bitched & moaned about the city hiring consultants, albeit mainly for CodeNEXT and the Vision Plan. Which do you want: consultants or no consultants?) Do you want the city to use the consultantsâ suggestions for streamlining expenses, or do you think merely hiring McKinsey in the first place was a âwaste of moneyâ? (Yes, you need to pick one of the two.)
150 million for park restoration. 60 million for parking garages. Whatâs baffling about that?
Nothing at all, nor did I suggest anything of the sort. I was âbaffledâ solely by your Grove comparison.
You didnât answer the question put to you.
I just did, but you actually didnât. I asked: âWhat specific large-scale, city-funded projects had âmassively inflated budgetsâ?â You cited wasteful federal government spending on Dell computers, which has no relevance, and an admittedly overpriced sidewalk block on S. Congress. You also cited ballpark numbers on an early-stage project that had barely made it past the concept stage before the city killed it. I meant a literal example.
I can tell you why youâre baffled.
Indeed: your lack of concrete examples. Iâll quote JP here: âItâs not that the plan was perfect. There were certainly things that were questionable and details that needed to be filled in. Itâs that it was summarily executed in its entirety with lies and misinformation.â Iâm sorry, but a hypothetical $150M park restoration budget qualifies as misinformation, given that it was never even close to being approved (again, too early stage).
Would I question the expense if it was actually happening? Yes, Iâd definitely want to know all the specifics â but, unlike you, I wasnât immediately assuming (based solely on the bare-bones Vision Plan) that the proposed $150 million restoration budget would be a âwasteful boondoggleâ; I try to stay open-minded about such things â and contrary to your earlier suggestion, Iâm more than capable of understanding municipal budgeting processes. However, NIMBYs smothered this one into extinction far too soon to jump to any such conclusions, or even allow any real input on anything vaguely concrete.
Happy to revisit once Vision Plan 2.0 is approved â meaning fully, not a mere âvisionâ â probably at 2x the cost of the first plan. (One thing I assume we can agree on is that municipal projects get far more expensive as time passes. We couldâve saved a massive amount of money if weâd approved a light rail network the first time around.)
ZNA didnât kill this plan. the plan killed itself once people understood how misguided it was.
Respectfully, have you read any of the many recent comments here on the subject? The plan didnât âkill itself.â A variety of NIMBY groups, including (but certainly not limited to) the ZNA, massively overreacted to a highly preliminary plan, and used their considerable lobbying skills to abort a plan that was âmisguidedâ only because it was the equivalent of about three weeks along in a nine-month gestation process.
there were no traffic/environmental/economic studies done or referred to that validated any of the claims made
Again, what part of âpreliminary planâ doesnât make sense? And if youâre all up in arms about spending huge amounts of money on consultants, why do you think more consultants are needed to confirm many things we already know? I havenât read any of them since law school, but I think most of the environmental arguments SOS made 30 years ago about Barton Springs are still largely or wholly valid today, even despite the cityâs obvious growth since then. We also have detailed traffic stats for every core arterial road, including BSR. Further, what âeconomic studiesâ do you think are needed for a public park? (Or do you mean ones âdebunkingâ the notion that ACL should be held there?)
the best way for âzilker to best accommodate austinâs ongoing growthâ is to establish more park land all over austin
Austin already has nearly 30,000 acres of parkland. Yet more propaganda that weâre somehow âdeficientâ in terms of parks.
every single survey about the hillside theater done by the consultants and elsewhere showed little support for moving the theater. guess what showed up in the plan? a 5000 person theater on the great lawn.
False. What actually happened: city staff based the 5,000-person figure on an actual count of the number of visitors at several Hillside Theater shows, many of whom were perched in seriously unsafe viewing spots like standing on tree branches. What they did not do was ever suggest a â5000-person theaterâ on the Great Lawn: at no point was permanent seating even discussed for it.
Further, a key point of moving it is to relocate it away from Barton Springs. It was constructed in 1957 and definitely would not be permitted today, considering itâs all concrete / impervious cover and far too close in terms of runoff issues. This isnât a question of groups âsupportingâ it or not, or any consultant recommendations.
Btw this Chronicle story outlines all of the above at length:
Further still, PARB explicitly stated that the plan to move it to the Great Lawn wasnât in any way etched in stone â contrary to your own spin and that of others:
âThe current theatre is in the Barton Creek watershed,â says Ogren, where âthere is substantial impervious cover â right outside the pool entrance, [and] right up at the rugby fields draining directly into Barton Creek, thereâs a huge parking lot.â The plan restores at least two acres of that to woodland if the theatre moves. Cost-wise, Esparza says, âit always costs less to build new than to refurbish something that is 66 years old, and was never meant to last as long as it did.â
However, moving it to the Great Lawn is not a sure thing, and Esparza says sheâd be open to other locations. (PARB also recommended moving it elsewhere.) The fear of 5,000 permanent seats on the Great Lawn, furthermore, is simply unfounded: âWeâre not talking about permanent seating at all. If the stage is elevated, then you can accommodate seating on the grass. No permanent seating.â
nimby nimby nimbyâŚ
the plan was nearly three years in the making but with only a couple years of that being a âpublicâ process. iâve talked to people who serve on the boards and the zilker collective / zilker351 group was already lobbying the boards and commissions before the public knew anything about a vision plan. the plan reflected, almost verbatim, what that group stated they wanted. design workshopâs outreach and survey process was bunk. i participated in every meeting they offered and was very disappointed with how it was managed. i have read through their survey data and, in many scenarios, contradicts the final design.
the vision plan did not utilize any traffic studies (new or old), they did not utilize parking/demand studies (new or old), they did not utilize environmental studies (aside from a catalogue of resources that is mostly incomplete), and they did not provide the public or any group outside of the zilker collective the same amount of voice in the process. the zilker collective had already registered the zilker351 domain a year before anyone had ever been informed that an umbrella nonprofit was even an idea being publicly floated by the vision plan. thatâs serious intuition.
anyways⌠nobody has said there should be no vision plan for zilker. the consensus is that this is not a good 50 year vision plan. people agree that parking and transit are difficult in zilker and austin as a whole but generally they donât support parking garages being built inside the park. a majority of people donât support the hillside theater being moved to the great lawn and expanded to hold 5,000+ people. a majority of people donât want the sports fields moved away from the great lawn and consolidated into one spot. a majority of people donât see the need for a welcome center. the majority of people donât want to see zilker park consumed by years of construction when the majority of people believe the park is pretty great as is. however, people do generally agree that the creek banks need attention, that we need more shade trees, that the water quality and flow of barton springs is really important, that better signage would be great, more bikes racks, more/cleaner restrooms, more/safer options to cross barton springs road (maybe a lower speed limit), no umbrella nonprofit running anything, and to spread the wealth to more parks across austin so that we can all access great parks that are conveniently located for us.
austinâs acre per resident ratio has been steadily declining for decades. that is not propaganda, it is a fact. we are gaining residents faster than we are setting aside park space for them to access. prove me wrong.
ACLfest and the other large paid events that shut the park down to the public for months each year are a whole other issue. ACL will most likely no leave the park any time soon especially if the city continues to structure park funding based around renting out all of our parks.
the ârefurbishedâ hillside theaterâŚ
their own renderings contradict your âno permanent seating areaâ claims. if they truly want equitable access to these activities then the hillside theater would be doing shows at other venues, like waterloo park, rather than build a larger venue inside the park.
iâm not sure why youâre so married to this exact plan. i think it is fair to say that there are more ideas out there than what was expressed in this plan but they werenât given any consideration because of the influence of the zilker coalition. it is absolutely relevant that some of the boards/commissions members who were voting on the plan were also on the boards of the same nonprofits that had lobbied to be the umbrella nonprofit to become the intermediary between the public and the park. in that scenario the right thing to do is recuse yourself.
happy to talk about how to make a better vision plan.
I love this whole paragraph but especially this âŚ
my hope is the âplanâ continues on quickly- and the money is put aside to do something on a timeline and they dont just take their ball and go home.
anyways⌠nobody has said there should be no vision plan for zilker. the consensus is that this is not a good 50 year vision plan. people agree that parking and transit are difficult in zilker and austin as a whole but generally they donât support parking garages being built inside the park. a majority of people donât support the hillside theater being moved to the great lawn and expanded to hold 5,000+ people. a majority of people donât want the sports fields moved away from the great lawn and consolidated into one spot. a majority of people donât see the need for a welcome center. the majority of people donât want to see zilker park consumed by years of construction when the majority of people believe the park is pretty great as is. however, people do generally agree that the creek banks need attention, that we need more shade trees, that the water quality and flow of barton springs is really important, that better signage would be great, more bikes racks, more/cleaner restrooms, more/safer options to cross barton springs road (maybe a lower speed limit), no umbrella nonprofit running anything, and to spread the wealth to more parks across austin so that we can all access great parks that are conveniently located for us.
Dr. Nicholas Vaughan
a majority of people donât support the hillside theater being moved to the great lawn and expanded to hold 5,000+ people.
I can only assume you didnât even bother to read my last post if youâre still spouting this crap after I posted a detailed debunking of this conspiracy theory. Once more, with feeling: Hillside Theater performances already draw 2,000-3,000 people for normal shows, and have had 5,000 attendees for a few. That is the lone element involving 5,000 people: there is no plan for an âexpandedâ theater, nor anything even close to a consensus about moving it, period.
a majority of people donât see the need for a welcome center.
Possibly because those polled already know the park very well and have no need for a welcome center? Either that or, as per usual, NIMBY NIMBY NIMBYs want to be as inhospitable to visitors as possible, as if thatâll magically prevent them from moving here, so no surprise that theyâre engaging in âotheringâ with something as ordinary as a basic welcome center.
the majority of people donât want to see zilker park consumed by years of construction when the majority of people believe the park is pretty great as is.
See, thatâs the thing: it wonât stay great without significant shoring up, and opponents have gotten so obsessed with the details that yâall canât see the forest through the trees. Zilker âas-isâ would be fine if Austin still had only 300,000 residents. Thatâs no longer the case, and Austin badly needs to prepare for the future â including upgrading its marquee park so that people can continue to enjoy it. Fine, feel free to quibble with whatever the budget ends up being, but we do need to upgrade the park. Period. And while obviously no one wants it quagmired in years of construction â not that that would necessarily happen (why wouldnât it be done in sections, as opposed to all at once?) â sometimes such works are necessary for long-term preservation.
no umbrella nonprofit running anything
Who would run things, then? Wait, lemme guess: a âconcerned citizenâ group consisting entirely of Zilker-area residents! (But seriously, yâall hate private interests in the park, and now youâre hating nonprofit interests as well? Who, exactly, do you think should be running the show here? Or is this basically a âPARD has been corrupted by C3!!!â conspiracy suggestion?)
austinâs acre per resident ratio has been steadily declining for decades. that is not propaganda, it is a fact.
Yes, and itâs stating the obvious: the ratio has been declining for decades because our population has tripled since the 1980s (and we obviously have a finite amount of land of any sort, for parks or any other purpose). I find it interesting, however, that you acknowledge this fact, but I assume side with the ZNA in terms of severe limits on desperately needed infill housing to prevent home prices from jumping even further into orbit. You think we need more parks but not more housing? (or at least not in, or near, Zilker)
their own renderings contradict your âno permanent seating areaâ claims.
Right: âseatsâ as in literal seats. You object even to an amphitheater with grass steps?? (that can be used during the day as well) Still â and again â youâre clearly stuck on the conspiracy theory that this is some master plan architected by Ticketmaster or whatever, and having dealt with one too many QAnon people as of late, Iâve given up trying to talk people out of delusions theyâve convinced themselves are incontrovertible fact.
iâm not sure why youâre so married to this exact plan.
Iâm not in the slightest, nor did I say anything to suggest it. Iâm the one that understands that itâs a conceptual plan, and itâs silly to get overly invested in something so preliminary. (Though clearly Austin NIMBYs beg to differ.) Iâm actually lightly opposed to some parts of the plan and entirely opposed to a few, though Iâm not delving into specifics since weâve already over-litigated the topic far too much. And speaking of overlitigated issuesâŚ
it is absolutely relevant that some of the boards/commissions members who were voting on the plan were also on the boards of the same nonprofits blah blah blah
Sorry, but this whining about who is or isnât on various boards/commissions is total BS. I still remember the NIMBY outcry over Greg Anderson being appointed to a board because of his âreal estate ties.â Heâs the local director of Habitat for Humanity FFS! (or at least was) Attacking him as a âdeveloper flunky,â which is exactly what the Community Not Commodity / SOS / ANC / _NA squad did, was appalling. (Especially since we all know which commission happens to be stocked with NIMBYs who also have clear conflicts of interest.)
weâre still talking about the zilker division plan?
I much prefer the original rendering of the ârefurbishedâ âzilker hillside theaterâ which showed
the venue clearly not being used for theater and an airplane flying overhead advertising SXSW.
Great stuff.
I drove past that stage area yesterday and there were a bunch of kids out using the field to play sports.
Warmed my heart.
